Forum - View topicNEWS: First 'CG Child 'Pornography' Arrest in Japan Detailed
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
NGK
Posts: 244 |
|
|||||||||
|
Can anyone think of a better, P.C. way of saying "CP"?
Encountering that word is so distracting and kinda throws me off when I speed-read. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
TsunaReborn!
 Posts: 4713 Location: Cheltenham UK |
|
|||||||||
|
And here I was thinking photoshop could make anything legal... Moron
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||||||
|
As I guessed in the other thread, as well as what tsurupeta revealed, examples of this type previously legal, non-pornographic, nude photo books, includes famous actress Rei Miyazawa's (nsfw) coffee table book Santa Fe. Agnes Chan from UNICEF tried to pressure Japan a few years ago to ban possession of it, citing it to be "child porn" as Miyazawa was 17 at the time. Even Miyazawa herself forcefully pushed back.
The CP media many people had assumed if he had any, where NOT what people were thinking in their heads to be. The "child" in quotes because there's no actual children involved. Does it make sense that a young adult model--i.e. anyone past puberty--can pose in a swimsuit, and if she lets a nipple slip, then OMFG, she's a victim of child pornography! That just 2 sq. inches of cloth turns a passive viewer into horrific sex offender? As I also mentioned, it sets a terrible precedent that because they needed a reason for arrest and could not arrest him for the original photo books, which are still currently legal to posses (pending the upcoming bill), they decided to use a specious interpretation of distributing "depictions" of someone. It absolutely sets a bad precedent because the logic is that anything fictional drawn person that can be traced back to a real life inspiration or source is now liable to be criminalized. But this itself involves thought crime. What if you drew a nude version of Emma Watson in her younger years? What if you drew a Rie Miyazawa nude? If you say, oh it was inspired by a picture made a year after Santa Fe... then you are not a criminal. But now lets say that you say the same sketch was based on Santa Fe, then you're some horrific "child" predator? How is that rational in any way? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
KENZICHI
 Posts: 1118 |
|
|||||||||
|
So he took photographs of real girls from a book and modified them so that they were inappropriate? I'm just curious on how exactly he did that and if it even looked good. Er, I guess it was good enough for people to buy them and for it to be called child porn. Uh.... The only thing I can think of is that he just completely redrew the pictures..... Or that the originals were 'on the edge' in the first place.....
Why am I thinking about this so hard? And those pre- 1999 books of naked girls... that creeps me out. I'm guessing that's the book he had? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
TsunaReborn!
Posts: 4713 Location: Cheltenham UK |
|
|||||||||
If the shots are for a swim shoot shot and not for nudity then the photos should not be published anyway. If the photos were to be published without the models consent there will be some kind of consensual law broken, at the very least. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||||||
I mean with consent of course. I'm simply comparing two types of photos the model may pose in differentiated by mere inches of cloth and the irrational treatment between the two now (though not then; and they were quite mainstream, hence the wide circulation and famous young idols & celebs) |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
FenixFiesta
Posts: 2581 |
|
|||||||||
It is one of those slippery slope situations, how much of quantity CP must be possessed to be a valid reason to arrest a person, what if the model they were basing there art on is of a 25 year old+ gravure idol that simply has such a small figure that when animated they could be mistaken for a High Schooler or younger. The situation is only made worst in that Japan has, in comparison to the US, a much more aggressive culture in prosecution and more than enjoy rail roading those that are legally accused into jail to put another mark on successful cases. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||||
|
This is BS. A guy takes legal books of nude child models*, scans them and alters them a bit and suddenly it is considered child pornography. That's ridiculous. Let's keep the term "child pornography" to refer to actual children being abused/taken advantage of, not a guy using photoshops of legally-available images.
* I think such books are actually pretty gross, but given American values at the time (like Brooke Shields' movies Pretty Baby and Blue Lagoon, and the sexualised Levi's ad she did), Americans can't take the moral high ground. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
|||||||||
This is just idiotic. The secret camera analogy is completely inapplicable here. The young adult who has consented to have her picture taken and distributed publicly is now supposed to become a victim because of some unknown person is looking or "gazing" at her picture--who again, she agreed to give--the wrong way? (Please tell me you're not one of those people who believes in the male gaize, btw) Who are YOU to determine that she is victim? That she, who owns her own body and voluntarily posed and has knowingly given away her picture to many others that will gaze at it, has been "abused", just because you do not agree to HER own actions? If there is any exploitation going on, it would simply be of her person on her own body, which is a pretty fundamental right, of natural law, regardless of arbitrary, finicky, subjective legislation imposed by you or anyone else. You sound exactly like Agnes Chan when she tried to make the same case insisting effectively that Rie Miyazawa didn't own herself. But you know what, forget these legal, artsy photo books. Why does the media you copy from even have to be on paper? Why can't that media be from your own eyes? What you're saying is that if those thoughts inspire someone to draw a nude model from what he or she sees--legally--in bathhouses or in private, then they too should be punished for their thoughtcrime for their abusive, exploiting gaze, AMIRITE? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Happiness for Subaru
 Subscriber Posts: 242 |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dtm42
Posts: 14084 Location: currently stalking my waifu |
|
|||||||||
First of all, she isn't a child any longer. She'd be in her thirties by now at the very least. Secondly, she consented to being photographed in the nude in the first place. The only one degrading her was herself, which as configspace pointed out was her right at the time the photographs were taken. Thirdly, the images were already sexualised before he even did anything to them. He didn't abuse her. Maybe he breached copyright or whatever by trying to sell the pictures when he didn't have rights to them, but he didn't actually abuse her.
Your analogy is so awful and absurd that it deserves to be killed with fire.
But it isn't illegal yet. Until they are outlawed there's nothing legally wrong with owning one, so your point is what exactly?
Except he wasn't actually making real child pornography and wasn't abusing anyone.
To put what he did on the same level as real child pornography trivialises the latter and is a reprehensible comparison. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
NGK
Posts: 244 |
|
|||||||||
No. We are better informed if more precise, accurate terms are used: "Documented child sexual abuse" "Child sexual abuse material" "Child sexual exploitive material" "Depicted child sexual abuse" "Child abuse images" and the abbreviations "CAM", "CEM" "CAI" for brevity CP sounds like something popularized by gutter-level 4chan and is being used so loosely these days that I cringe... even the FBI is moving away fast from using "CP" these days. It's also unfortunate Japan is also using this loose, cringe inducing term 「児童ポルノ」 Most law enforcement agencies working with child sexual abuse material believe it is time to stop the use of the misleading term "child pornography" (CP) when describing images of sexual abuse of children. Why? Child abuse is not pornography! A sexual image of a child is abuse or exploitation and should never be described as pornography. Pornography is a term used for adults engaging in consensual sexual acts distributed (mostly) legally to the general public for their sexual pleasure. Child abuse images are not. They involve children who cannot and would not consent and who are victims of a crime. The child abuse images are documented evidence of a crime in progress... a child being sexually abused. By referring to the images as child porn, kiddy porn, or similar terms, it allows them to think that it is somehow acceptable and legitimate, like other types of pornography. The terms "kiddy porn" and "child porn" are used by criminals and should not be legitimate language used by law enforcement, judiciary, the public or media. Children who have been sexually abused and photographed deserve to be protected and respected and not have the seriousness of their abuse trivialized by the lulz term..."porn". |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
revolutionotaku
Posts: 897 |
|
|||||||||
Shintaro Ishihara & his right-wing gangsters are at it again. They may destroy the Loli/Shota industry (unless the anime/manga industry stands up & do something about it). Dan Kanemitsu was right! Last edited by revolutionotaku on Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Aethix
Posts: 36 |
|
|||||||||
|
So not only was he distributing child pornography, he was also plagiarizing it.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Ignatz
|
|
|||||||||
|
This is just stupid. No one was abused. What's with all the fuss?
Last edited by Ignatz on Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group